Weighing vs. Counting Shellfish Remains: A Comment on Mason, Peterson, and Tiffany

Mason et al. (1998) argue in a recent article that weight as a form of data quantification in the analysis of shellfish remains should be replaced with estimates of the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) based on identification of “nonrepetitive” elements (NRE) such as the hinge of a bivalve. Their...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American antiquity 2000-04, Vol.65 (2), p.407-414
1. Verfasser: Glassow, Michael A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Mason et al. (1998) argue in a recent article that weight as a form of data quantification in the analysis of shellfish remains should be replaced with estimates of the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) based on identification of “nonrepetitive” elements (NRE) such as the hinge of a bivalve. Their comparisons of the two forms of shell data quantification lack relevance, and they fail to recognize difficulties in identifying nonrepetitive elements on many kinds of shells. Although weight of shells has its shortcomings, it is still the most appropriate form of quantification in many contexts. A more fruitful viewpoint would be to consider ways in which weight and MNI (or NRE) might complement each other in addressing research questions.
ISSN:0002-7316
2325-5064
DOI:10.2307/2694067